103. They

have the right to do that, under the right definition of MJ, but their evidence is weak about the characterization of MJ. If Congress has no evidence to prove what they are characterizing should be restricted, then they can basically make anything illegal, even a glass of milk.

That is where the fight meeds to be. MJ has been falsely characterized. How can this be a Level one drug when it is useful for medical purposes? The evidence did not exist at the time of its useful purposes. Now there is evidence. MJ was Labeled a narcotic under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. It was also painted as addictive. A lot of successful people have smoked it and led successful careers. You get rid of the myths, then Congress has no reason to mis characterize it. When medical marijuana reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintive used the Commerce Clause and lost the case 5-4. All the lIberals on the court voted against using medical marijuana, but the conservatives voted for except Scalia, who voted concurred. The case needs to be argued on different grounds. I think at the lower level, the labeling of marijuana by Congress needs to be challenged with scientific evidence by experts. The proponents need to show cases of harmful effects, such as addiction. I just don't think the Federal Government can prove it's case now. That needs to be re litigated.